One of my favorites (an "answer song" to Bowie's Space Oddity):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1Hs2AQwDgA
I don't know if it's true or not, but I once heard that Schilling did not speak English when this was recorded (it was originally recorded in German).

People should know about what wacko-birds like this guy are saying. (How can 'Murrica defend against enemies and traitors if we don't know what they're thinking?)
"Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Official TruthTM by the U.S. Government."
Or something like that ...

Did he actually point the gun out the window? Or was he merely seen through the window from outside while he was handling the gun inside the room?
I was under the impression that it was the latter, though I may be wrong. If he was pointing it out a window, then it is not entirely unreasonable for an onlooker to have thought that he might also have been about to fire the gun. (Why else point a gun out a window?) This raises an interesting question: what if you were an open-carrying mundane (or a concealed-carrying mundane, for that matter) and you saw someone waving or pointing a gun out a window? What would you do? Yanking out your gun and popping off rounds at the guy might be an overreaction (or maybe not, depending on what else you think is going on), but nonchalant indifference doesn't seem appropriate, either.
Whatever one might do in such a situation, the upshot is surely that it not wise to point guns out of windows ... (especially in publicly trafficed areas like hotels ...)
(DISCLAIMER: As anyone familiar with my posting history will already know, none of this should be construed as an attempt to suggest that the actions of the cops were in any way justified or excusable - or indeed, that their actions were anything but those of rabidly deranged killers.)

I'm reminded of an old saying: "You find what you look for" ...
There will be regular full-scale audits, you say?
FTA (emphasis added): http://thehill.com/policy/defense/364001-pentagon-starting-first-ever-financial-audit
*sniff*sniff* What's that smell ... ?
... ahhh, yes, I think I recognize it now ...

100% of the world's T206 Honus Wagner baseball cards are held by just a couple of hundred people.
Why should this make us think that the rise in the price of Honus Wagner cards is not the market at work? :confused:
Originally sold for pennies (along with a pack of cigarettes), most Honus Wagner cards are now valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars. One of the cards - known as the "Jumbo Wagner" - has sold for over three million dollars.
Note also that the value of a Honus Wagner card "isn’t based on any underlying asset, but rather largely on human sentiment" - and that the prices of the cards are often the product of "collusion" between the holders of the cards and large institutions (such as Christie's or Sotheby's), who together set a minimum "reserve" price.

No. I would rather use your post and Influenza's as illustrations of why it is pointless even to bother ...
quod erat demonstrandum
The only thing lacking at this point is an anarchist chiming in to the effect that Swordsmyth, rev3 & Influenza are vile moral defectives.
At that point, the Platonic form of anarchist vs. minarchist "debate" at RPFs will have been fully immanentized.

This is why I no longer substantively participate in threads directed at anarchists by minarchists (and vice versa).
They typically devolve into mutual recriminations of intellectual backruptcy, moral deficiency, etc.
With only the second post, this one is already on its way down that well-trodden path ...

It is true. It isn't about whether cops had guns "back then" or not. It's about the fact that, ever since the inception of "modern" police forces in the 19th century, cops have been the specially privileged enforcers of the state's statutory malum prohibitum rules (and only incidentally the apprehenders of malum in se offenders such as Bonnie & Clyde). That is what they do. That is what they are for. That is why they exist.
Human nature has not changed. "The job" has just as powerful an attraction to the same kinds of people today as it did "back then" - sociopaths, sadists and others who get off on aggressively exercising authority over others with little or no accountability for their actions. Things like "nickel rides" or murderous "jailhouse" neglect and abuse (or the "code of silence" among "brothers in blue" that routinely attends the lack of exposure of such brutalities) are not of recent vintage - and it does not take guns to do what was done to people like Kelly Thomas or Eric Garner, either now or "back then."
What is relatively new is the paramilitarization of police. But this did not create any of the aforementioned problems or the almost total lack of accountability for them. Those problems already existed, from the very start. (It is in the essential nature of the beast.) The paramilitarization of police has only served to exacerbate them, while the ubiquity of video (and the ease of disseminating video via the Internet) has made them much more difficult for the authorities (and their lapdogs in the media) to excuse or conceal. (The italicized bits here are the point of my original post.)

And if it weren't for the ease of disseminating recorded video via the Internet, you probably still wouldn't think so.
fisharmor is right. This ain't nothing new:
The only difference now is that the Little Dutch Boys (public officials & police, their compliant mouthpieces in the media, etc.) can no longer keep all the holes plugged up and the evidence for how things really are (and really always have been) is finally getting out from behind the dykes they've constructed to keep the true state of affairs concealed ...

Jesus H. Christ.
When I was composing my reply to Zippy (post #40), I thought about including some song lyrics or something in which "red" and "white" and "yellow" and "black" were used in an innocuous context to promote the idea of our commonly humanity. I figured there had be something like that out there somewhere (especially from the '60s or '70s). So I did a Google search on "song lyrics red yellow black white," like so:
https://www.google.com/search?q=song+lyrics+red+yellow+black+white
Guess what the top result was?
For the sake of brevity and concision, though, I decided to just let my point stand "as is" without extraneous references to any songs or what-have-you.

I am sure that some do (especially among those who are homeless by choice - and there are such people).
And my point is that even if they don't, the government makes it inordinately more difficult than it already would have been for them (and any other poor people) to acquire real property, either through their own efforts or via charitable or privately subsidized endeavors.
Some would and some would not. So what? What has that got to do with anything? "They" are not monolithically homogenous.
And presumably, those sources of charity and other private subsidies which provide such property would also have an interest in providing assistance in this regard, if necessary. It would also be more likely to result in better maintenance than is evident in such tragic commons as public housing projects. (It certainly couldn't get much worse.) And for those who are chronically unable or unwilling to own or maintain such property, there is always the already well-known avenue of shelters, food banks, etc. (which government also manages to diligently obstruct and retard).

:confused::confused::confused: I didn't say anything at all about the comparison being valid or invalid.
I merely congratulated thebeaverton.com for a successful attempt at trolling ... (this thread is proof of that ...)

Who is "we?" And whose property is it that you are proposing to "offer ... for free?"
Anyone who owns or can acquire property can certainly engage in charitable or other privately subsidized efforts to provide homes & property to those who cannot afford it.
But that is made far more difficult by government's myriad forceful interventions in the market (such as prohibitive zoning laws, to name just one).
"Poor" does not mean "without money or assets." And as relatively more difficult as it may for the poor to acquire property, the effort is made much more difficult - even impossibly so - by interventionist government policies (such as those deliberately engineered to artificially prop up or inflate real estate values).

I can't help but wonder - what did he actually say about "reds and yellows?" Something kind? Something hateful? What? :confused:
IOW: Why can't Zippy, HuffPo or the LA Times be bothered to tell us why we are supposed to be upset about this?
And if we are supposed to be upset at the assumed "insensitivity" of the mere use of the terms themselves (regardless of what was actually said about the people those terms were used to denote), then I also have to wonder how often Zippy, HuffPo, the LA Times, et al. have blithely (not to mention hypocritically) referred to Caucasians as "whites" ...

Actually, Muslims did not come up with the numeral zero. They borrowed it from the Hindus. Europeans, in turn, borrowed it from the Arabs. Whence, the "Arabic" or "Hindu-Arabic" number system used today by just about everyone.
Specifically, the Persian (i.e., Iranian - i.e., not Arabian) scholar and engineer al-Khwarizmi wrote On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals, which introduced the Hindu numeral system to Arabs/Muslims. (Side note #1: al-Khwarizmi's name was latinized as "Algoritmi" from which we get the word "algorithm.")
This system was then transmitted to Christian Europe in the Middle Ages (primarily by way of Moorish/Saracenic Spain), where it was later popularized by Leonardo of Pisa (a.k.a. Leonardo Fibonacci, he of the famous "Fibonacci sequence") in his text Liber Abaci ("Book of Calculation"). Prior to Fibonacci's seminal work, the cumbersome Roman numerals (which had no symbol for zero) were used by European mathematicians. (Side note #2: Fibonacci's Liber Abaci also introduced the use of the decimal point.)

I'm disappointed WRT your comment in my rep. I didn't know that about Rand. Disappointing. One more reason for me not to be thrilled, I guess. What would Rand's proposal accomplish? I mean, if security procedures were left up to the individual airport that might be a significant improvement (although I think even better would be to leave it to the airlines) but as long as DHS is running it, how is that helping anything?

I wish I could ask Rand Paul that question. I do really want to know what he's thinking.

Basic Information

Signature

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.